Reply With Quote
You cite two different writers. One has the Spurs as Team of the Decade, the other has the Lakers.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...s=iref:nbahpt1
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...ate/index.html
While it is true the lakers beat us in more series, we made it to the playoffs every year so we are the team of the decade like everyone says. This is just from a pro-lakers perspective. No worries.
Go spurs
You cite two different writers. One has the Spurs as Team of the Decade, the other has the Lakers.
So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?
Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times
Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.
Best ever list are subjective-whoever prepares the list will pick their best ever on whatever criteria they deem important. So nba.com picks Lakers; another organization picks spurs-no the spurs haven't 3 peated; they only have 3 rings vs. 4 but the bottom line is results and BOTH TEAMS were multi-champions and that's all that really matters.So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?
Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times
Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.
Spurs=made playoffs every yr in the decade...can't say that much bout the Lakers who almost traded Kobe..Spurs>Lakers Spurs are the team of the decade.
Congrats for your David Stern lesSo a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?
Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times
Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.
Kobe player of the decade? That's a bunch of horse .
So how did it feel that day when your beloved Kobe wanted to get traded and then "change his mind" later that day??! Did it feel like your daddy wanted to leave you behind?So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?
Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times
Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.
SI.com picked Duncan.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142010
PLAYER OF THE DECADE: Tim Duncan, San Antonio Spurs
The greatest power forward in NBA history, Duncan was the reason San Antonio became the only team to make the playoffs every year of the decade. He was the most valuable team player of his era, an active defender who chased pick-and-rolls out to the three-point line and yet hustled back to protect the rim and control the boards. Offensively, the Spurs played through him as a passer in the post, and his dependable mid-range jumper off the backboard will be part of his highlight reel when he checks into Springfield.
How many times do we have to go over this? The Lakers are the team of the deacade but so what.
my choice for team of the decade doesn't go 34-48
Yeah it's a no brainer to me too. The Spurs had the best front office but the Lakers had the most success in the decade. More success in the post season is more valued than regular season wins.So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?
Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times
Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.
Team performances each year in the decade. Lakers come out on top if you look at it year by year.
99-00 Lakers: Championship / Spurs: Lost 1st round (Lakers 1 / Spurs 0)
00-01 Lakers: Championship / Spurs: Lost WCF (Lakers 2 / Spurs 0)
01-02 Lakers: Championship / Spurs: Lost 2nd round (Lakers 3 / Spurs 0)
02-03 Spurs: Championship / Lakers: Lost 2nd round (Lakers 3 / Spurs 1)
03-04 Lakers: Lost Finals / Spurs: Lost 2nd round (Lakers 4 / Spurs 1)
04-05 Spurs: Championship / Lakers: No playoffs (Lakers 4 / Spurs 2)
05-06 Spurs: Lost 2nd round / Lakers: Lost 1st round (Lakers 4 / Spurs 3)
06-07 Spurs: Championship / Lakers: Lost 1st round (Lakers 4 / Spurs 4)
07-08 Lakers: Lost finals / Spurs Lost WCF (Lakers 5 / Spurs 4)
08-09 Lakers : Championship / Spurs: Lost 1 round (Lakers 6 / Spurs 4)
Who cares?
Hate to say it, but Lakers are the team of the decade...they have one more ring, and while we could say they missed the postseason one year, they can say we never repeated. That said, we def. did more with less, but looking at the results, LA edges San Antonio thanks to LA's 09 le.
Again, it's just a label, but something fun to argue nonetheless...
It would be interesting to see the ulative payroll of both teams for the decade.
And that's all it is. Laker fans think they're the team of every freakin' decade. But this is our decade....period.
I really don't know why you or Laker fans pride yourself on those 6 Finals appearances....you ing lost 2 of those....and it took them 7 years to finally win another Finals after 2002. The Spurs on the other hand, won 50+ games in every Season of the Decade and won every Finals series they appeared in.So a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?
Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times
Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.
2 finals losses mind you in which one was classified as a 5 game sweep and the other resulted in the biggest scoring disparity in NBA finals history given to you by your most hated adversary.
Whatevs LAL fan. Spurs can say that they've NEVER been defeated in the NBA Finals
Missed the playoffs <<<< A team that has made the playoffs for 10 consecutive seasonsSo a team like the Spurs that doesn't give a about the regular season is team of the decade because of their regular season success?
Look dude, simple math: 4 rings > 3 rings. 6 finals > 3 finals. 4-1 head to head. Three-peat > failure to repeat three times
Los Angeles Lakers: Team of the Decade.
Brilliant!2 finals losses mind you in which one was classified as a 5 game sweep and the other resulted in the biggest scoring disparity in NBA finals history given to you by your most hated adversary.
Whatevs LAL fan. Spurs can say that they've NEVER been defeated in the NBA Finals
lol Amare game 6 lol
You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds ya.
Back to back to back
Whatevs LAL fan. Spurs can say that they've NEVER been defeated in the NBA Finals
No repeat -- no dynasty
Larry Legend Bird never went back to back, so why was that era called a Celtics Dynasty?Back to back to back
No repeat -- no dynasty
If Bean fails and becomes the first ever team leader of a Phil Jackson led team to not repeat, let alone three peat, are you going to say the same?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
